3.14-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfie...@redhat.com>
commit a1b8ff4c97b4375d21b6d6c45d75877303f61b3b upstream.
The nfsv4 state code has always assumed a one-to-one correspondance
between lock stateid's and lockowners even if it appears not to in some
places.
We may actually change that, but for now when FREE_STATEID releases a
lock stateid it also needs to release the parent lockowner.
Symptoms were a subsequent LOCK crashing in find_lockowner_str when it
calls same_lockowner_ino on a lockowner that unexpectedly has an empty
so_stateids list.
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfie...@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
---
fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 11 +++++++++--
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
+++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
@@ -3714,9 +3714,16 @@ out:
static __be32
nfsd4_free_lock_stateid(struct nfs4_ol_stateid *stp)
{
- if (check_for_locks(stp->st_file, lockowner(stp->st_stateowner)))
+ struct nfs4_lockowner *lo = lockowner(stp->st_stateowner);
+
+ if (check_for_locks(stp->st_file, lo))
return nfserr_locks_held;
- release_lock_stateid(stp);
+ /*
+ * Currently there's a 1-1 lock stateid<->lockowner
+ * correspondance, and we have to delete the lockowner when we
+ * delete the lock stateid:
+ */
+ unhash_lockowner(lo);
return nfs_ok;
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
